[bookport] Re: Why Administrator?
- From: "Kramlinger, Keith G., M.D." <kramk@xxxxxxxx>
- To: "'bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:20:55 -0600
I think I'm getting confused.
Is my present understanding correct, as below?
If one has administrative rights, the firmware will be installed without notice.
If one does not have administrative rights, the dialog box message will appear.
If one elects to bypass the check, the firmware will be installed (even if one
does not have administrative rights), but with some undeterminable risk of
failure.
So....one does not need administrative rights to upgrade the firmware.
Administrative rights are only needed to perform the check. Is that right?
Thanks. Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of LARRY SKUTCHAN
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 3:15 PM
To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bookport] Re: Why Administrator?
No if you have elected to bypass the check, the unit will still download
and install the firmware. If you have admin rights, you won't even be
asked this question.
>>> paulh52@xxxxxxxxxxx Wednesday, March 23, 2005 3:55:59 PM >>>
Hi, Larry. The only thing that worries me here is that I didn't even
know
there was a chkdsk much less how to use it until I read about it on
this list.
If the card will be checked anyway if I press okay, than that works for
me.
I assume that if I press okay, that the card will be checked if I have
administrative rights? What if I press okay and don't have
administrative
rights?Will it just bring up the message again?
At 3/23/2005, you wrote:
>Oh much better idea, Larry!
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "LARRY SKUTCHAN" <lskutchan@xxxxxxx>
>To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 11:19 AM
>Subject: [bookport] Re: Why Administrator?
>
>
> > After seeing all the negative response to this idea, we are
thinking of
> > warning you that we cannot tell if the flash card is free from
errors
> > and that we recommend you check the card yourself. We will then
offer
> > to let you proceed if you wish. Of course if you are using XP and
have
> > admin rights, we will correct errors on the card then proceed with
the
> > update.
> >
> >
> >
> > >>> ewers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Wednesday, March 23, 2005 2:11:21 PM >>>
> > Larry, given your reasoning below, I for one would like to go with
> > your
> > proposal requiring the user to have administrative privileges.
The
> > only
> > problem I see is that one or more people on the list might not
have
> > privileges. Then, I suppose, they could get the person who does
have
> > those privileges to accomplish the update.
> > Neal
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of LARRY SKUTCHAN
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 12:49 PM
> > To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [bookport] Why Administrator?
> >
> >
> > The reason we are considering requiring administrative rights
before
> > applying a firmware update is that we want to check and/or fix
errors
> > on
> > the flash card before applying the firmware update. If you do not
> > have
> > admin rights, you cannot run chkdsk, and we cannot run the
automated
> > version of this tool to correct errors.
> >
> > Now, if you are saying, that you do not care to check for errors
> > before
> > applying the update and you know the update could damage the device
if
> > there are errors on the card, and you would have to send it back
in,
> > that is fine. We just assumed that you would prefer to check the
> > media
> > for damages, correct those errors, then apply the update on a
known
> > good
> > structure even at the cost of the inconvenience of logging in as
an
> > administrator.
> >
> > The fact is that you need to check the flash card for errors, and
we
> > can
> > do that for you. Even if you want to do it yourself though, you
will
> > need to have admin rights.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________ NOD32 1.1032 (20050323) Information __________
> >
> > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> > http://www.nod32.com
> >
> >
Other related posts:
